Earlier this month we noted how Disney and ESPN had sued Sling TV for the cardinal sin of actually trying to innovate. Sling TV’s offense: releasing new, more convenient day, weekend, or week-long shorter term streaming subscriptions that provided an affordable way to watch live television.
These mini-subscriptions, starting at around $5, have already proven to be pretty popular. But, of course, it challenges the traditional cable TV model of getting folks locked into recurring (and expensive) monthly subscriptions. Subscriptions that often mandate that you include sports programming many people simply don’t want to pay for.
So of course Time Warner has now filed a second lawsuit (sealed, 1:25-mc-00381) accusing Dish Network of breach of contract. In the complaint, Warner Bros lawyer David Yohai argues that this kind of convenience simply cannot be allowed:
“The passes fundamentally disrupt this industry-standard model by allowing customers to purchase access to the most sought-after programming, such as major sports events, essentially a la carte for a fraction of the cost that the consumer would have had to pay to watch the event on a pay-per-view basis. For example, a sports fan could simply purchase a day pass and watch select programming, such as a highly popular sports game, without purchasing a month-long subscription or paying a higher pay-per-view fee.”
Not disruption and convenience!
It’s certainly breaking TOS, so the country you’re in doesn’t matter.
I’m not a lawyer, but I suspect that you may be overestimating the extent to which every piece of bullshit inserted into a TOS document that nobody reads is universally enforceable.
It’s not a legal issue. They’d just shut down any accounts doing this. They already detect and shut down account sharing and this is just a variant of that. No law or government intervention necessary.
One could make it technically somewhat difficult to shut down, but better yet would be to get some timely government intervention, on the side of defending our rights to do such things on the same kind of principle as the well-established doctrine of first sale.